Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838384›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and national roll-out of the NHS App in England.

Claire Reidy, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Sukriti Kc, Bernard Gudgin, Anthony A Laverty, Felix Greaves, John Powell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Claire Reidy *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. claire.reidy@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Chrysanthi Papoutsi *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Sukriti KcSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bernard GudginPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and member of the Advanced Research Computing Board, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anthony A LavertySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Felix Greaves *School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
John Powell *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS App launched in 2019 as the 'digital front door' to the National Health Service in England with core features including General Practitioner (GP) appointment booking, repeat prescriptions, patient access to records and, later on, COVID-19 vaccination certification. Similar patient portals have been adopted in different formats and with variable levels of success. In this longitudinal study (2021-2023) we examined how the NHS App became implemented in the pandemic context and beyond.

methodsWe recruited 88 participants in 62 qualitative interviews and four focus groups. Participants included patients, carers, members of the public, clinical/non-clinical NHS staff from five GP practices (where we also conducted over 60 h of observations) across England, as well as other industry, policy and civil rights stakeholders. Document analysis also contributed to participant recruitment and data interpretation. Data collection and analysis was informed by the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework.

resultsOur study identified the various ways in which complexity manifested as part of the implementation, use and roll-out of the NHS App. Patients had diverse (positive and negative) user experiences as the app evolved, with some of its features described as more useful than others (e.g. prescription ordering, COVID Pass). As the app primarily provided a gateway to general practice systems and infrastructures, not all features were available by default or consistently to all users, with information often appearing fragmented or system-facing (e.g. coded). NHS staff viewed the app as constituting core NHS infrastructure in the long term which made it appealing, even though initially there was less recognition of its immediate value. There was variable organisational capacity to enable implementation and to put in place processes and staff roles required to support patient adoption. Shifting emphasis towards in-person care, challenges with digital inclusion and controversies related to features such as patient access to own records further complicated roll-out.

conclusionsAs the NHS App remains a complex innovation in a shifting landscape, it is clear ongoing work is needed to ensure its potential can be sustained to meet patient, service and policy needs. CLINICAL STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72729780.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mobile ApplicationsState MedicineEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2COVID PassDigital healthGeneral practiceNHS AppPatient portals

Identifiers

PMID39838384
PMCPMC11752663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.